In the past two weeks, the Tufts community has received two reports from Tufts University Police Department regarding vague, and in one case unsubstantiated, reports of wrongdoing. The first, on April 1, occurred when a student reported that a male peer may have poisoned a female student's contact lens solution with peanut oil in an attempt to trigger an allergic reaction; neither the male nor the intended victim were known to the police. TUPD later concluded that there was no credible threat. The second, on April 10, reported that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) police had detained a suspect at the Davis Square T station for allegedly stealing an iPhone or iPod from an unidentified victim.
Both of these cases reflect a frivolous and excessive use of the campusâwide email alert system, a case of too much noise and too little substance. TUPD safety alerts should be reserved for cases in which there is a substantiated and imminent threat to the Tufts community. Neither one of these cases met those criteria. To the university's credit, the MBTA email was not labeled as a safety alert, but the effect was nonetheless on par with one. Repeated safety alerts on matters this frivolous dilute their power and encourage students not to take them seriously.
Seeing the subject "Safety Alert" in one's inbox should convey the idea that crucial security information is contained. When the university sends out too many of these emails, the potency of each one is diminished.
In the case of the peanut oil threat, TUPD sent out a safety alert about something that was likely nothing more than an offhand comment taken out of context or an April Fool's Day joke directed at TUPD. A vague report of an implausible, unsubstantiated scheme does not foster vigilance. Students are likely to dismiss emails that don't refer to a clear threat, and when the time comes for the police to warn of a substantiated threat, they will be more likely to dismiss these messages as well.
The email about the theft occurring at the Davis Square T station was similarly unclear yet highlights a different problem with the alerts: jurisdiction. Students do not need to be informed of every incident of petty theft that occurs in the surrounding areas outside of campus, and this one occurred more than half a mile away. The fact that TUPD reports such incidents only creates an illusion that students are in more danger than they actually are.
Robberies that occur on campus or on streets directly adjacent to it are worth reporting, because their perpetrators could pose a threat to the Tufts community. But incidents that occur away from campus are not worth reporting to the community. If schools located in urban centers reported every crime that occurred near campus, their students' inboxes would be inundated with safety alerts on a regular basis. Likewise, if Tufts reported to its students every crime that occurred in Davis Square and surrounding neighborhoods, safety alerts would become a daily occurrence, and most students would delete them without a second thought.
Occasional robberies are a reality of living in a city. Students should know to be vigilant without having to read an email from TUPD every time it learns of a mugging. TUPD should limit its reports to crimes that occur on or directly adjacent to campus and to those that pose a credible and imminent threat.
--
